Rife Machines: Discussion--cancer, Lyme, ME/CFS

Kina you are confusing controversial therapies like the Lightening Process. Frequency therapy is scientifically proven and mainstream especially in Germany so l suggest that you and hip do your own research if you would like to debate it.

I would like to have the freedom to discuss alternative treatments without a debate, unless I desire one. If you want to debate then start one.

Click to expand...

If you don't want to allow dissenting opinions or questions regarding the scientific validity of your statements, a discussion on an open forum isn't a good place for it. A blog or a private club might work better, since you can exclude dissenting opinions and members from those venues.

If anyone wants to debate the validity of rife therapy they should start their own thread instead of interupting the discussion.

Click to expand...

This thread was started in order to continue the existing debate on the use of Rife machines. I am the one who started this thread by splitting it from another and, if you look at the posts that were split from an earlier thread on alternative ways to treat cancer, they are very much a debate, not simply a discussion between members who had good success with Rife machines. So it is perfectly appropriate for this debate to continue.

I am quite happy to discuss it with people who have done their homework. I don't have the time to do their research for them however and explain how it works. This is supposed to be a forum to support sufferers of CFS which includes alternative therapies if that's what you want to mistakenly call this. Why do you expect another patient to do your work for you?

I am quite happy to discuss it with people who have done their homework. I don't have the time to do their research for them however and explain how it works. This is supposed to be a forum to support sufferers of CFS which includes alternative therapies if that's what you want to mistakenly call this. Why do you expect another patient to do your work for you?

Click to expand...

You're making an extraordinary claim which flies in the face of logic and scientific knowledge. The burden is on you to prove your own statements, especially when they are so unlikely. Additionally, several forum members have done a lot of homework on the subject, and you are unable to provide a satisfactory response to their evidence when it disputes your claims.

Kina you are confusing controversial therapies like the Lightening Process. Frequency therapy is scientifically proven and mainstream especially in Germany so l suggest that you and hip do your own research if you would like to debate it.

Click to expand...

So then where is the scientific evidence from Germany that rife machines cure cancer? Looking for evidence regarding anything isn't denigration. I have done my research and again fantastical claims deserve some kind of scientific support. At least the LPers don't claim they can cure cancer as many rife proponents do.

No l don't have to prove my statements if l only wish to discuss with others who accept a valid scientifically proven treatment used in other countries by medical doctors.

Click to expand...

And everyone else can keep asking for you to support your claims, and disagreeing with you, and providing evidence which contradicts your claims. Why should you be able to express your opinions on the forum, while they should be forced to remain silent if they disagree?

Holland describes his collaborations with professional scientists, and as these people were professionals, they presumably knew how to do experiments. He also mentions having his work professionally reviewed during the video. At 13:30, he says, "In repeated, controlled laboratory experiments, independently assayed by the two top experts. we killed an average of 25% to 42% of the leukemia cells - as high as 60%."

Click to expand...

There would appear to be a major discrepancy between what musician Antony Holland is saying in this TEDx video about his collaboration with professional scientists, and what those professional scientists are themselves saying :

I found this radio show talk about Antony Holland's collaboration with cancer scientist Jonathan Brody (and there is also a transcript of this radio show here). Brody allowed Holland to perform the cancer cell experiments in Brody's lab, under his watchful scientific eye. To start with, Holland was getting good results, but he was not properly following the scientific method (he messed things up with the control samples).

So Brody got Holland to repeat his experiments again, this time with properly done controls, including a special type of control called a sham. This is when it started going wrong... I will quote directly from the radio show transcript:

Jonathan Brody
Well, the pulsing basically caused the cells to become resistant to the drugs. And they grew better.

Anthony Holland
This is really weird, because it's very opposite of what we saw in previous experiments.

Jonathan Brody
Yeah.

Gabriel Rhodes (the narrator of the radio show)
It's a disaster. It's a huge setback. It's shocking. The data show that in the plate of treated pancreatic cells, the ones pulsed with electromagnetic waves and given a tiny dose of chemo, 100% of the cancer cells were alive after treatment. Meaning not only did the pulsing not kill any cancer cells, but somehow, the pulsing seemed to protect the cancer cells from being killed by the chemo. Anthony is stunned. He keeps saying the same thing again and again.

Anthony Holland
All the other experiments show completely different results. I don't understand that. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Jonathan Brody
It's a slap in the face, isn't it?

Anthony Holland
Yeah. Yeah.

Jonathan Brody
Yeah. So I'll go through stepwise, OK? Because there's some things we definitely need to discuss here.

Gabriel Rhodes
They talk for 45 minutes, going over every aspect of the experiment. Anthony had used a different microscope this time. Maybe that was a problem. The microscope light that Anthony used when he took time-lapsed photos of the experiments, was the light heating the cells? And the amp for the device had been outputting less power than usual. Maybe some of the components were damaged. But the upshot of these last experiments is different for Jon and Anthony. Anthony sees these results as a fluke, an outlier. The other results still seem valid to him.

Jonathan Brody
But for Jon, there's only one truth. If they want to publish, they've got to do more experiments. Anthony has to reproduce and confirm those great earlier results with controls. For me, doing this for 20-some-odd years or whatever it is, it doesn't surprise me that it's going to be this complicated. But I'm in it for the long haul, as far as the collaboration is, to try to figure this out. And we'll just keep at it, OK?

Anthony Holland
OK.

Gabriel Rhodes
But that wasn't what happened. In fact, for an entire year, Jon wasn't sure what was going on. And neither was I. He offered to go up to Skidmore to set up a lab for Anthony there if he couldn't come back down to Philadelphia. But that didn't happen. And then Anthony became very hard to reach.

And a couple of weeks after Jon talked to Anthony by phone for the first time in several months, I go and see Jon. He's decided to go up to Saratoga the following week to talk to Anthony face to face about the experiment. In the last year, Jon's become more of a skeptic, partly about the device itself, but also about the collaboration with Anthony. Why would Anthony just drop out like this?

Jonathan Brody
If he really believes in it and he really believes those results, let's do it again. If you cured cancer cells, let's do it again. My lab is open. My lab is open. My expertise is open. I'm happy-- you don't want to do it in Philadelphia? Let's do it in Saratoga. Ask him, why hasn't he taken me up on that? Let me ask you a question. If you knew you had something that killed cancer cells, and you believed in it, you really believed in it, you could wait a year to try to prove that because one set of experiments didn't work? I mean, come on.

Gabriel Rhodes
This is one of the big differences between Jon and Anthony, between scientist and non-scientist. For Jon, having a year's worth of work suddenly thrown into question is a normal day at the office. But for Anthony, that's not normal. And it's not OK. The time in Jon's lab was a year of his life, where he felt like Jon kept moving the goal posts.

I felt that way, too, sometimes as I was watching. Jon kept saying he was amazed at what he was seeing and just about convinced. But then he'd wake up in the middle of the night with another experiment or control that he wanted to run. And there was no telling when it would end, which for him, again, is normal. But now, Anthony wants to know, before he starts turning his life upside down again, what will count as proof enough for Jon? How many experiments?

Anthony Holland
So let's say I do three weeks of experiment, and I only concentrate on these leukemia cells. And if I can kill at least 20% every single time, every week, will that do it? Would that be enough? Or do you want to see pancreatic die, or do you want to see-- I mean, what exact buttons do I have to hit?

Gabriel Rhodes
When Jon gets to Saratoga, he and Anthony embrace and smile. And they're clearly glad to see each other. But as soon as they start talking about the experiments, they start arguing. And they don't understand each other. Jon keeps coming back to the same point.

Jonathan Brody
Why can't you accept that we haven't proven anything? In the court of scientific law, we haven't proven anything.

Anthony Holland
But we have very intriguing results.

Jonathan Brody
That's fine. I mean, if you want to leave it at that, you could say that. But there's a big difference between intriguing and promising results and actually showing and demonstrating that something works. There's a huge difference. So 10 years from now, would you still walk around campus and be like, you know what? I killed those cancer cells. I actually did that. I actually proved that this worked. Do you think, deep down, that's the way you feel? That's what I want to know.

Anthony Holland
We're not just talking about the last experiment, right? We're talking about the whole thing. In general? Are you kidding? I would frame this chart showing 43% of the leukemia cells dead. And I would say, we nailed them.

Jonathan Brody
Let me ask you a question. Let me ask you a question. If you're sitting on the cure for cancer, why aren't we doing the experiments?

Anthony Holland
I can't afford it.

Jonathan Brody
So you're telling me, you're willing to say to the world that you think you have the cure for cancer, but you can't afford it.

Anthony Holland
Yeah.

Click to expand...

So it looks like at the first sign of difficulty, Anthony Holland gives up, and abandons the collaboration, leaving with no proof that his pulsed fields can treat cancer.

However, this is not what Anthony Holland says in his video. In his video he gives the impression that he has succeed in killing cancer cells. But the scientist and cancer research expert he collaborated with, Jonathan Brody, says that there is no proof of this, and that the experiments did not lead to any conclusion one way or the other. So unless Anthony Holland is referring to another completely different scientific collaboration in his video, he would appear to be misrepresenting the truth of what happened.

All credit to Anthony Holland for trying; he put a year of his life into this research. And he did in his first run of the experiment on leukemia cells kill 30% more cells than in the controls. Sad that he did not persevere a bit longer, in order to try to obtain scientific proof.

Holland and his collaborators call his machine a Rife-Bare machine, and that's what it is. As Holland mentions in the video, the only difference between his machine and a standard Rife-Bare machine is that the RF carrier wave was made tunable; it is set to the 11th harmonic of the base frequency.

What you mean by base frequency here? Is Anthony Holland saying that they modulated the carrier wave with two different frequencies at the same time, the first at some base frequency, and the second at a frequency 11 times higher (ie the 11th harmonic) than the base frequency?

Anthony Holland also states in the TEXx video (at timecode 12:38) that "we now know that cancer is vulnerable to frequencies between 100 kHz and 300 kHz". Is he referring to the base frequency here? Does the base frequency have to be between 100 kHz and 300 kHz?

What was the frequency of the carrier wave used by Holland? I have seen on other phanotron plasma tube videos they use 27MHz as the carrier wave frequency.

Would you happen to know why Rife enthusiasts use this rather exotic apparatus of a phanotron plasma tube to transmit their radio frequency output? Why not use a standard radio transmitter?

I read that a phanotron is just an old fashioned thermionic tube that was originally designed to rectify AC current, before the advent on silicon diodes. Here is an old General Electric catalogue describing phanotrons.

I was looking for a scientific explanation of why Rife enthusiasts use a phanotron apparatus rather than a standard antenna and radio transmitter, but found no explanatory info for this. What is the rationale? I found this website that sells phanotron plasma tube machines, at rather hefty prices in the $1,000s, but no explanation of why they are used instead of standard radio transmitters. Rife enthusiasts seem to be using these phanotrons without any specific reason.

Given that you can buy a 100 Watt 27MHz CB radio transceiver for around $100, it would seem ludicrous and unnecessary for people to buy a phanotron 27MHz transmitter costing more than $1,000. Unless there is something that phanotrons can do which regular antennas cannot.

There would appear to be a major discrepancy between what musician Antony Holland is saying in this TEDx video about his collaboration with professional scientists, and what those professional scientists are themselves saying :

Click to expand...

Well, this is certainly disappointing. I was unaware of the problems in the results that arose later. Yet the TEDx talk was given after these problems arose. Although technically most of what Holland said in the talk was true, I would have to call the omission of the negative results unprofessional and misleading. And as a scientist, I would have to agree with Brody's later comment, "In the court of scientific law, we haven't proven anything." Either the negative results and Brody's later objections should have been mentioned, and claims of what was proven be limited to what was proven in controlled conditions, or else the talk should not have been given with the research in its current state.

Brody is a scientist; he's doing things properly. I have to agree with him at every point about the experiments and their interpretation. Holland is unfortunately trying to cut corners, and that just doesn't work in science. Again, this is very disappointing.

I thought the following quote was very revealing:

This is one of the big differences between Jon and Anthony, between scientist and non-scientist. For Jon, having a year's worth of work suddenly thrown into question is a normal day at the office. But for Anthony, that's not normal. And it's not OK. The time in Jon's lab was a year of his life, where he felt like Jon kept moving the goal posts.

I felt that way, too, sometimes as I was watching. Jon kept saying he was amazed at what he was seeing and just about convinced. But then he'd wake up in the middle of the night with another experiment or control that he wanted to run. And there was no telling when it would end, which for him, again, is normal. But now, Anthony wants to know, before he starts turning his life upside down again, what will count as proof enough for Jon? How many experiments?

Click to expand...

I've been in Jon's position too, where everything looks great and then I realize, to be really sure, there's another test I should run. And here, these people are trying to prove a cure for cancer. If there's any question at all, you have to check it out. So my sympathies are totally with Jon here.

Sad that he did not persevere a bit longer, in order to try to obtain scientific proof.

Click to expand...

He is persevering; he just can't do active work when he has no money. So he's trying to raise money. In the mean time, he's assembled a scientific team with good credentials:

Phillip Ortiz: PhD (Physiology and Biophysics) expert in cell biology, molecular biology and tissue culture research and assay techniques. He is a fellow of the American Diabetes Association and the National Institutes of Health. Coordinator of Science Education, State University of New York (SUNY), Empire State College.

Dr. James Bare: Chiropractic Physician, Inventor, specialist in therapeutic pulsed electromagnetic device research and development, member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the Bioelectromagnetics Society.
Dr. Bare is the inventor of the Rife-Bare machine.

One hopes that Holland has learned from his mistakes. If he has, I think he has excellent chances of making further progress and accomplishing his goal.

It still seems to me that Holland is onto something big, which may very well turn out to be a cancer cure. But he's got to prove it under controlled conditions and be able to do it every time. Right now, there's the one major roadblock of the unexpected pancreatic cell reaction. What if the resonant frequency of the cells sometimes depends on their genetic makeup, and how those genes are expressed in a cell? Then it might simply be a matter of using different frequencies for different people. A preliminary biopsy could be done to gather cancer cells from an individual, and determine to what frequency they respond.

There are other possibilities as well. But first Holland has to get his funding lined up.

The ResIWave units are made in Germany, and fulfill the highest quality standards. They are manufactured in a monitored and certified factory accordion to ISO 9002 standard. Additionally, the unit is certified as a medCE MPU (medical product unit) according to the stringent European standards ensuring highest safety for the user.

Click to expand...

I don't have sufficient German to cite the clinical trials, but here are some papers of interest:

I have no financial interest in the company and use another device in addition. Therapists hire out the unit and provide chips according to the condition they wish to treat or you can program a more expensive unit yourself. Of course when selling in the US they are not allowed to make health claims for the unit, it being such a backward and controlled country as far as non chemical treatments are concerned, but in Germany they can do so.

For myself, I do not wish to pollute my body with chemicals and regularly become allergic to herbal remedies so I consider frequency therapy to be a great help to me for all sorts of things. Like my broken toe, which was X rayed a few days ago and the break was confirmed. The first two days, the pain was extreme and I was laid out with it, feeling like a truck had hit me. My cognitive function was also seriously affected.

As I will not take pain killers, I began treatment with my computer run device, putting the electrodes around my toes, and running broken bone and fracture frequencies for 30 minutes. After a day the pain and swelling subsided substantially and then the pain and swelling were gone totally so that I was able to walk. The Consultant was rather puzzled at the lack of pain on examination but I did not tell him what I had used.

It is now a week since the break, and there is only a slight soreness on pressing the area. It is quite usual to have a rapid healing response using this therapy. I frequent forums where people have all sorts of issues resolved quickly and colds and flu often go with in a day or less. I have used the therapy for various conditions with success. People have regularly reported that their cancers have been found to have disappeared after testing and Lyme patients report great improvements, some herxing and some not with some claims for a cure.

I am about to start treating the many infections I have after running frequencies which strengthen my detoxification organs. All cells resonate at individual frequencies, being electrically charged, and can be improved by using the specific frequencies, or destroyed as needs be. For myself, knowing that R R Rife actually cured cancer cases who had been failed by the medical profession, and which were well documented, my own and others experiments, and the fact that this is a mainstream treatment modality in Europe, makes me have no doubts about its benefits for mankind.

Can I ask those who are opposing these studies to produce some evidence regarding their claims please?

You are rubbishing it yet have so far produced nothing to back up your claims.

It is controversial whether they produce the same effect. Many say yes but it is playing safe to say 'similar'. But that is not important. The ones produced since are giving similar results but there is a question as to whether the exact same results can be produced as cancer is much harder to treat today, but there are reports by many to say yes it is being cured but takes longer.

In the past I was treated with a Scio machine where one can program into it the relevant frequencies, taken from the Rife handbook, in my case frequencies for Lyme and CPn. It did nothing for me.
My therapist also treated her late husband who had prostate cancer. Neither chemo nor rife frequencies helped him.
On the other hand, it seemed to work for my back and neck pain but it helped as long as I kept treating.

Click to expand...

I double checked. Some of what I wrote in the above post was incorrect, sorry it was a few years ago...
The Scio treatment I had was based on certain frequencies already programmed in the machine. In my own case, my practitioner didn't program from the Rife handbook, so those frequencies might have been different.
This may be relevant for those who say that only original Rife frequencies are effective. Personally I doubt but those are the facts.

So there's no research actually involving Rife devices to support your claims?

Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier, none of the original Rife machines have survived to the present day, and their technology is rather antiquated at this point. The main feature of the original Rife machine was an RF wave that could be frequency modulated, along with a lower frequency sideband.

The machine that comes closest to this today is the Rife-Bare machine, which features a fixed-frequency RF carrier wave, and an amplitude-modulated sideband of a much lower frequency.

One of these machines has been approved by Health Canada and is licensed for sale in Canada as a Class II medical device (which means it is of low to medium risk - the same risk category as Brenda's machine.) I'll have more info on this machine tomorrow.